Arena Profile: Rodell Mollineau

Rodell Mollineau, president of American Bridge 21st Century, brings more than a decade of experience developing national message campaigns and leading high-level communications operations.

At American Bridge, Mollineau leads the overall efforts of the Super PAC and its companion 501(c)(4) foundation, overseeing the premier research and communications operation that will serve as a permanent progressive counterweight to the outside Republican groups that took hold of the electoral process in 2010.

Prior to joining American Bridge, Mollineau spent four years in the office of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) as Staff Director of the Senate Democratic Communications Center. In this role he oversaw one of the largest political communications operations in the country, directing the long-term message development and rapid response strategy of the Senate Democratic Caucus and working closely with the White House, House Leadership and members of the progressive community to coordinate message and strategy.

Mollineau is a veteran of several statewide and presidential elections and has led communications initiatives in every region of the country. He served two previous tours of duty on Capitol Hill starting his career as a press aide to Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) and later working as Communications Director for U.S. Senator Mark Pryor (D-AR). He is also no stranger to state government having served as Communications Director to former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack.

Mollineau grew up in New York and New Jersey and is a graduate of the University of Dayton in Ohio.

Rodell Mollineau's Recent Discussions

Should the GOP break their anti-tax pledge?

The pending austerity bomb offers a moment when Republicans will be forced to tip their hand to which of their countervailing “priorities” - tax cuts or deficit reduction - actually takes precedent. Because of Norquist’s absolutism, Republicans are finding it ever more difficult to make the case that these two positions are not logically at odds with each other.

Presumably, the incentive behind the pledge is the political benefit. It is obviously not a matter of practical policy, as the last decade has failed to accrue the benefits promised by the Bush tax cuts. Instead of creating jobs, they exploded the debt.

But this past election suggests that the political bonus of signing the pledge is waning. It simply is not credible to argue that the President’s reelection can’t be read as a referendum on the very clear and very different tax policies suggested by the president and Mitt Romney. The American people were well aware that President Obama intends to raise taxes on millionaires and billionaires and their actions at the ballot box indicate they agree with that course of action.

What remains to be seen is what, if any, influence Norquist will be able to exert as more members abandon his pledge. The early defectors have pointed out the absurdity of being beholden to a pledge ostensibly intended to protect taxpayers when to do so goes against those taxpayers’ wishes and interests. One man should not have the power to jeopardize the long-term fiscal health of our nation to satisfy his simplistic principles and a personal desire for relevance.

After one election victory in 19 years, it's hard to fathom a scenario where Republicans would be clamoring for Mitt Romney to come back. But as a Knicks fan who lived through the Isaiah Thomas era, I've learned that complete and utter failure is no barrier once James Dolan/Republican voters are convinced someone has what it takes.

Mitt Romney was never really a leader - more of a weather vane that reflected whichever way the wind happened to be blowing at the moment. The problem with his "47 percent" and his "gifts" comments is the same as the problem with Richard Mourdock's "God intended" comments - he took a fundamental belief widely shared by his Republican colleagues, and expressed it in just about the most offensive way possible.

If Republicans are starting to worry about their members saying things that alienate voters, instead of failed candidates like Romney, they should worry about their current officeholders like Steve King and Michele Bachmann.

On Monday, an ad was released featuring Mitt Romney's endorsement of Richard Mourdock for the U.S. Senate. On Tuesday, Mourdock said that pregnancy from rape is "something God intended to happen."

Mitt may have used the debates to furiously try to etch-a-sketch his record and appeal to moderates, but his severe conservatism is revealed by the people he wants to work with in Washington. Even before last night's comments, Mourdock has decried cooperation in DC, saying that what Washington actually needs is less bipartisanship. Mourdock has taken extreme stances in opposition to the auto rescue, denies the existence of climate change, and questions the constitutionality of Social Security and Medicare.

Even before last night's comments we knew that Richard Mourdock was an extreme conservative, and that Romney wanted him as a partner in Washington. Romney can pretend now to dissociate himself from Mourdock's rape comments, as he did with Todd Akin's. But if he didn't agree with Mourdock's extreme conservatism, he wouldn't have endorsed him in the first place.

At face value, the "binders" comment does not hurt Mitt Romney. Though it raises questions why his closest advisers were incapable of finding qualified female candidates on their own, affirmatively seeking diversity on one's staff is actually a good thing, especially if the story had been true.

Instead, the problem is that the comment came in response to a question about pay equity. Whereas the president was able to point to the Lilly Ledbetter Act as the first piece of legislation he signed, Romney instead spoke about "binders full of women" and letting women leave work early to cook dinner. Romney has refused to say whether he would have signed the legislation if he was president, and his running mate actually voted against it.

The fact is, Romney's standing with female voters (and the people who care about them) has been irreparably damaged by his record, both as governor and as a presidential candidate. In Massachusetts, Romney passed over female applicants for judicial nominations, predominantly appointing white males. Romney wants to eliminate funding for Planned Parenthood, which provides access to basic health care for millions of women. In 2008, he claimed he was “not familiar” with the Violence Against Women Act. And in Massachusetts, Romney vetoed funding for breast and cervical cancer treatment and prevention on multiple occasions.

If Romney is looking for the reasons that female voters aren't supporting him, maybe he should take a look in his BindersFullOfWomen.com.

In Vice President Biden, we have one of the most experienced and qualified individuals ever nominated for the position, but with the propensity for mild gaffes. In Paul Ryan, we have an individual who's managed to convince many people that he is very serious about budgets and the deficit because he uses power point, even though his numbers don't add up.

This debate will come down to whether people realize there's one person on stage who knows what he's talking about, even if he stumbles a bit or turns an awkward phrase, and there's another just playing the part of conservative scholar and making it up as he goes along. We saw how much Mitt Romney lied during the first debate, and can expect the same from Paul Ryan on Thursday. Whether they are discussing the Ryan budget's plan to voucherize Medicare or Mitt Romney's tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires, Vice President Biden needs to call out Ryan on the spot, so the American people can see the lack of substance behind the stylish facade.

More POLITICO Arena

About the Arena

The Arena is a cross-party, cross-discipline forum for intelligent and lively conversation about political and policy issues. Contributors have been selected by POLITICO staff and editors. Each morning, POLITICO sends a question based on that day's news to all contributors.